I used gobbet to the extent that the PMs comments often seem to be contingent, half-chewed, throwaway soundbites – ideas quickly formed and strongly held, but only until the next focus group comes along – rather than the result of considered thought or deeply held convictions.

The porn alternative would be that the PMs utterances are akin to casting pearl necklaces before swine.

Prime Minister John Key says Solid Energy was not discouraged from buying the Pike River mine.
The state-owned coal company is in financial difficulty, with debts of more than $390 million.
When Solid Energy bought the mine last year it said it would take all reasonable steps to recover the bodies of 29 miners who died at the West Coast mine in explosions in November 2010, provided the recovery plan was safe and financially credible.
Asked on Monday if the Government encouraged Solid Energy to buy the mine, Mr Key said they weren’t discouraged, and to the best of his recollection it was Solid Energy’s idea.
Mr Key says he “vaguely remembers them raising the issue with us, They weren’t a buyer at any price.”
Mr Key says the Government believed Solid Energy had the best chance of understanding conditions for body recovery, and had a strong relationship with the West Coast mining community.

@framu
Not sure you followed – Gregor W’s T-Shirt generator works thus:

1. Take PM quote – “You’re munted mate, you’re never gonna make it, you’ve got that gay red top on there”
2. Go to http://www.bing.com/translator/ translate from Japanese to English and back.
3. Enjoy! “Gay red top has munted buddies have never attempted you have there.”

So JK wisdom:
“The good news is that I was having dinner with Ngati Porou, as opposed to their neighbouring iwi which is Tuhoe, in which case I would have been dinner, which wouldn’t have been quite so attractive,”
Becomes:
“I’m so attractive I think the dinner and is not”
Which has the double benefit of fitting easier onto a t-shirt and being less offensive, which still retaining a high degree of unintelligibility.

“I guess I’m reasonably confident in all honesty. But I definitely don’t think I’m arrogant. I’m pretty down to earth, I mean I’m genuinely down to earth.”
=
“I in all honesty reasonable sure I believe. However, I don’t think I was arrogant, I definitely. I mean on Earth really pretty I’m the Earth.”

OK last one:
“I think what happens when you are prime minister is no day is the same and every day you are under pressure. And there is always so much happening that the days just flash by and flash into weeks.”
=
“What happens when the Prime Minister and I are no day is the same as I think every day you’re being squeezed. Always so Flash just days and weeks are going to Flash”.

‘Surprise on the upside?’ Sounds like a challenge New Zealand! Let’s all have a race-war…

“Surprise on the upside” is a common terminology in forecasting.

You have a projection for, say, the exchange rate (based on whatever fundamentals or observations you choose) but also recognise that there are risks to that projection – events that you think have a comparatively low probability but would impact the outcome if they came to pass. If you weigh up all those factors and conclude that your forecast has more probability of undershooting the final outcome than overshooting it, then you’d acknowledge the forecast has room for ‘upside surprise’.

If I may interject “surprise on the upside” in this context means she will pleasantly surprise you. While Phil is correct with his interpretation it is in a passive voice whereas Key’ comment is more aggressive in voice. AKA she couldn’t be any more shit that Joris de Bres.

@PB
Very funny, but not quite what I was saying. To use the exchange rate forecast example again:

I’m quite certain the effects of the drought will push the Kiwi down over the coming months as Fonterra, Stats NZ and others release earnings/output results. However, I’m reasonably confident that foreign demand for NZ government bonds and Treasury bills will keep some upward pressure on too.

If I was using the PM’s terminology, I might say by 30 June we’ll be a US cent-and-a-half lower than where we are now (about $1NZD=$0.78USD) but with half-a-cent upside surprise from that projection being a reasonable alternative scenario.

What really is the objection to Devoy other than she’s not been given the job by Labour.

Her appointment is symptomatic of Keys pretty relaxed attitude to most things.

Would you for example, think it’s OK to appoint someone to head the NZTA who had no experience in road safety issues, was supported in their appointment by a senior cabinet minister who suggested “He has two outstanding qualities. He’s a bloke and he can iron his own shirts”, who’s previous public position was New Zealand Poet Laureate, and who had previously opined in a newspaper that “The reality is that most New Zealanders either couldn’t care less or are frustrated by that what should be a rapid and efficient transit from point A to point B is marred by the imposition of speed limits”.

NeilM #17 “The government is intent on ignoring recent polling in Grey Lynn cafes that shows only liberals Care For The Children.”

NeilM #23 “Liberals are the middle class who pretend to be left wing but have the time to sit around going on about Devoy. The issue for them is how dare a conservative govt make a decision they don’t like.”

NeilM #38 “At some point not so long ago liberals morphed into conservatives.”

“surprise on the upside” is above all a piece of jargon. It comes from corporate managerialise, the home of “core competencies” and “downsizing” and “helicopter views”. Key is talking to his staunchest supporters – aspirational middle management private sector bureaucrats – in their own language.

The thing is, most on the left by inclination would rather die by having their heart cut out with a plastic spoon than embrace the corporate drone culture of HR managers, finance dept accountants and the sort of thinking that sees appointing a new CIO with a background in private sector sales to an university IT department as a triumph of recruitment. So many (most?) of the left who are either creative, politicised, vocational or courageous enough to do something that bucks the norms of conventional success have happily ditched the corporate drone wars for jobs that usually allow them that intangible luxury of greater scope of critical thinking about the ludicrous logic of corporate groupthink.

For critical thinkers, Key is a self-evident half wit who spouts corporate nonsense and mumbles poorly constructed rubbish to equally dim reporters. But while I and my friends may scoff at Key and his miserable use and abuse of the English language, around the new three burner BBQs in Milford self-important 30 and 40 something men and women talk in exactly the same way and they are the ones the corporate system rewards and promotes.

I understand Neil’s concept of liberals morphing into conservatives, and this has happened repeatedly in New Zealand politics, as well as conservatives morphing into liberals. But he seems to think that Devoy’s position is unquestionable, yet it is actually highly unusual for someone outside the political realm to be given such a high position first off the bat. I know our PM has probably had it on his mind for some time to get rid of English and make Jonah Lomu the Deputy Prime Minister, but that hasn’t happened. Something along those lines was bound to happen, though and we have it with Susan Devoy.

Oh gosh a legal opinion that settles it. Oh dear me that is troubling so it isn’t just pious righteousness about a state institution. Well done i/s you have managed to pick the peanuts out of the elephant shit.

Going out on limb here sure that National can find its own equally troubling weasel legal opinion.

Interesting approach to the importance of the Government abiding by the legal controls on the use (and abuse) of its discretion. I just hope the same writers didn’t rage against “outrages” like the Electoral Spending Validation legislation, Helen Clark’s painting “fraud” and PM motorcades being driven too fast. Seeing as the law is a mere chimera that means what the last legal opinion says it does.

Alternatively, Simon et al could show just how Devoy meets the statutory requirements for the position, seeing as it’s so easy to do.

Or yet again alternatively, we can wait to see what the advice to National was on the appointment and just what “weasel legal opinion” they came up with … and I write as a particularly slippery member of the Mustelid family myself.

I think the problem with the GCSB is that they didn’t use any external lawyers, but instead relied on some internal legal bloke who just didn’t understand what different immigration statuses meant. But not to worry, really. I mean, why should the government be concerned with technicalities like “what the law says you can and can’t do”?

“Or, let’s put it back on you, NeilM … what qualifies Devoy for the job, other than that National likes her?”

National and Labour are always giving jobs to people they like. What’s the problem with this instance? Oh, I/S claims it’s illegal. Well I’m not a layer but even I can read that a minister only had to give consideration to certain issues – they are not forced to abide by them.

And I find it somewhat abhorrent that any one on the left should think that making a having a particular political opinion a legal prerequisite for a government job is a jolly good idea.

Right. No problem with that – being able to do so is one of the reasons you try and get governmental power. But to go from there to say “because National (or Labour) appoints people it likes to positions, ipso facto there is no problem with National (or Labour) appointing whomsoever it likes to a given position” is faulty logic.

Well I’m not a layer but even I can read that a minister only had to give consideration to certain issues – they are not forced to abide by them.

Right. You aren’t a lawyer. So it’s forgivable when you read “must have regards to” as simply meaning “has to think about it but can then say it doesn’t matter and do whatever they want instead”. A lawyer with experience in administrative law, however, would not do so.

And I find it somewhat abhorrent that any one on the left should think that making a having a particular political opinion a legal prerequisite for a government job is a jolly good idea.

Errr … what? Who says “having a particular political opinion [is] a legal prerequisite” for the RRC job? The issue is one of experience and expertise with the underlying issues, not particular viewpoints. Apparently, Devoy’s only involvement with the issue of race relations prior to her appointment was penning a single op-ed on the issue. If this is enough to satisfy the Minister as to s13(a)&(b), then I guess I’m qualified to be governor of the Reserve Bank based on a blog post on quantative easing.

Of course, the real underlying issue is that (to quote TrannyD says above) the Government thinks that “the RRC has always been a wee bit of a waste of time” so it doesn’t matter who they put into the role – and even better if the person they DO put in gets the left’s nose out of joint. OK … whatever. But as someone who thinks it matters that Governments at least make a token effort to do what the law tells them to, I find that attitude troubling.

With respect, you are floundering. Sure, Devoy’s appointment isn’t the worst thing any Government has ever done. But you’re betraying a certain “if my guys did it, it can’t be wrong” attitude. Which is fine if you want to be one of those sorts of people, I guess.

Sure thing, NeilM. We’re all in a state of unavoidable epistemic uncertainty where any claim to truth is simply an assertion of power on the part of the person making it. Let me guess … majored in English Literature?

By the way – seeing as criteria are all so malleable and who can really know whether anyone has properly met them and it’s all in the opinion of the Minister anyway, you are entirely comfortable with how Shane Jones handled Bull Lui’s immigration application, right?

@ TransportationDevice A7-98.1

With any luck Devoy will be the last Race Relations Commissioner, ever. Putting aside the argument about whether she is qualified the position and office are superfluous if not totally irrelevant.

All it takes is an amendment act to change/repeal the Human Rights Act. Start lobbying your local MP now. But while it’s the law of the land, shouldn’t the Government (of whatever stripe) at least pretend to act in accordance with it? Because, if not … well, the Greens will one day be appointing people to the Board of the New Zealand Transport Agency. I wonder how Sarah Ulmer would like that job … after all, she’s been on a bicycle before!

> Oh … and NeilM … what qualifies Devoy for the job, other than that National likes her?

What qualified all the others, including Chris Laidlaw and Joris De Bres? Did being a trade unionist give De Bres the edge over the other candidates? Maybe Chris Laidlaw’s connections with the Labour Party helped with his appointment? Surely not.

The previous two holders of the job had some prior experience of cross-culturalinteractions … Laidlaw worked for the Commonwealth and as ambassador to Zimbabwe, de Bres was head of DoC (which has extensive interaction with Maori) as well as being an immigrant himself. So, sure they were both close to the Labour Party and this no doubt helped their appointments – politics is about helping friends and hurting enemies. But the difference between them and Devoy is that you can say with a straight face that they met the basic qualification for the role.

“We’re all in a state of unavoidable epistemic uncertainty where any claim to truth is simply an assertion of power on the part of the person making it.”

I’ve moved more to that position but not via a liberal arts degree. I happen to think our species is exceptionally prone to dressing up personal preference as objective fact.

In terms of suitability for a job I personally think the prime consideration is the persons character and that can only be a judgement call. Dressing that up as some sort of objective decision I think is mistaken.

I had no problem with the previous person, I can’t see just what was so absolutely amazing about what the did that would lead to excluding people with other backgrounds. I don’t believe that sensitivity to and ability with ethnic issues is detained by professional or academic experience.

> The previous two holders of the job had some prior experience of cross-culturalinteractions.

According to the HRC website:

“Dame Susan Devoy DNZM, CBE is a former world squash champion and is currently the Director of Women Walking Ltd. She is also a board member of the Sustainability Council of New Zealand and a member and former Chair of the Halberg Trust.

From 2000 to 2003 she was the Chief Executive Officer and Chair of Sport Bay of Plenty. Dame Susan served as a board member of the Auckland District Health Board (2000-2003). She is a trustee of TECT (Tauranga Energy Consumer Trust) and the Chairperson of the BNZ partners, Bay of Plenty.”

I imagine Devoy would have interacted with plenty of cultures in those roles. No indication, though, whether she is a member of the Labour Party or intends to stand for Labour as an MP after she completes her 5 year stint as RRC.

Sure a minister should consider specific experience but I’m doubtful that any set of legal requirements that would over- rule personal judgement would be a good idea.

The point is, NeilM, that there are a bunch of mandatory considerations for the Minister regarding any given individual’s suitability for the position that are set out in an Act of Parliament, and it’s very difficult to see how Devoy fits these (despite Ross’ valiant attempt to do so … brown people play sport! Asians use electricity!). If you see these as being a merely inconsequential “meh”, then that’s your call. But just don’t go crying about a Government you don’t like “breaking the law”, because you are giving up that privilege.

And while I’m here – Shane Jones and Bill Lui. You are entirely comfortable with his actions and can’t understand why anyone would be making any criticisms of him whatsoever, given that Ministers can pick and choose how to apply the law depending on whether or not they like or dislike a person?

I’m not a lawyer but I think the days are long gone since lawyers were entitled to the privilege of their own secret language,

And to me that reads “one must consider” not that that is all to be considered.

No doubt you could find lawyers who will argue your point of view and i could find those to argue mine. And perhaps if it went before a judge then perhaps the facts of the matter could be determined. Until then I feel I’m entitled to my point of view.

It you’re setting the bar so low for Devoy that to fail is to be charged with fraud then most likely Key was unnecessarily down beat about her chances of doing well.

Right. You are not a lawyer. You don’t seem inclined to accept the views of someone who is. So this is all a bit of a waste of time, isn’t it?

Now – Shane Jones and Bill Lui … for the third time, I assume you can’t understand why anyone would be making any criticisms of him whatsoever, given that Ministers can pick and choose how to apply the law depending on whether or not they like or dislike a person?

If you were interviewing someone for this sort of job you’d ask about their previous experience of similar tasks. I look forward to hearing about how Devoy’s mediation, policy and cultural bridge-building skills played out in past.

“If you were interviewing someone for this sort of job you’d ask about their previous experience of similar tasks. I look forward to hearing about how Devoy’s mediation, policy and cultural bridge-building skills played out in past.”

I’m not sure there is a similar job to that of RRC. But feel free to explain how a former trade unionist and supporter of the Labour Party fitted the job description.

Relevant professional qualifications or experience
• A tertiary qualification in a relevant discipline or comparable career experience.
• Career experience at a senior level reflecting good judgement, integrity and impartiality.
• Analytical skill and demonstrable clarity of thought.
• Ability to write clearly and concisely
• Experience in advocacy or public education.
• Experience in governance
• Experience in working with diverse groups and familiarity with dispute resolution processes.

Appreciation of human rights issues
• Understanding of the Human Rights Act 1993, the New Zealand Bill of Rights Act 1990 and New Zealand’s obligations under various United Nations conventions.
• Understanding of the Treaty of Waitangi and its contemporary application.
• Appreciation of issues, trends and developments in human rights and race relations arising in other countries or internationally, and of the relevance of those issues or trends in New Zealand.
• Familiarity with issues relating to indigenous, minority and disadvantaged groups.
• Understanding of the issues arising from the bicultural and multicultural nature of New Zealand society, including the need for different strategies and networks to communicate successfully with Māori, Pākehā and the various minorityethnic communities.
• Familiarity with issues facing employers and employees in a diverse workforce.
• Appreciation of the key goals of Government and their relevance to significant social issues.

Leadership skills
• The ability to provide vision and strategic leadership, to set clear policies and priorities, and to motivate staff.
• An understanding of good management practices and the ability to apply these effectively to achieve organisational goals and objectives.
• An appreciation of public sector management as set out in the Public Finance Act 1989.

Relationship management ability
• The ability to establish and maintain constructive relationships at all levels across a wide range both
externally and internally.
• The ability to work collegially with the Chief Commissioner and other Commissioners.
• The ability to stimulate interest in, promote understanding of, and encourage action on race relations issues.
• Professionalism and fairness in dealing with others.
• The ability to interact effectively with the media to promote harmonious race relations.
• Superior public speaking and presentation skills.
• An understanding of the aspirations of a diverse range of people and organisations, including Māori, ethnic communities, central and local government, businesses, non-Government organisations, media representatives, Members of Parliament, diplomats, service organisations, advocacy groups, educational and academic institutions, religious organisations and other sectoral interest groups.

I’m no fan of Jones and I’m not against holding ministers accountable for their decisions.

Oh, I get it now! When a Labour Minister appears to ignore the legal requirements in order to help out someone he (or his colleague) likes, then WE NEED ACCOUNTABILITY! Because that was the issue with Jones, wasn’t it – that his use of discretion to give Lui citizenship was very difficult to match up with the legal rules governing who should/shouldn’t be a citizen, leading to the suspicion that he exercised his discretion more because Dover Samuels was asking him to than because he thought the decision was the right one in law. But a National Party Minister? Well, it’s all just a matter of opinion what the law requires, really … I mean, how can we possibly know? So all this talk of “legality” is empty nonsense. Move on. Nothing to see here.

I think we might need to apply Occam’s razor to NeilM’s position and reduce it to its essentials: “Blue is good, Red is bad”.

@ Ross,

Thanks for digging those out. Hard to see how Devoy could fit them, given her past experiences. Unless, of course, you are NeilM (who appears to be Judith Collins out of drag).